Will Obama's Democrat Iran firewall hold?

President Obama is counting on House Democrats to be his last line of defense against congressional opponents of the nuclear deal with Iran.

Many key players remain undecided, however, and some lawmakers are speculating that as much as half the House Democratic Caucus might be willing to buck the White House.

“If [Republicans] bring before us a resolution that says ‘We hereby approve the deal,’ I think that as many as half the Democrats would vote against it,” Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a critic of the Iran deal, said this week.

Facing unified Republican opposition to the deal, the White House is working hard to get House Democrats on board. Top officials from Obama on down have been meeting personally with Democratic lawmakers in recent days, with the president even bringing some of them into the Situation Room to go over classified details.

At some point in September, Congress is expected to vote on the Iran deal. A vote against the pact would prevent Obama from lifting congressional sanctions on Iran, potentially blowing up the agreement.

Should a resolution against the deal pass, Obama would almost certainly veto it, setting up a final showdown in Congress.

If Republicans were to override Obama in the Senate — no small task, since it would likely require at least 13 Democratic votes — the fight could come down to House Democrats.

Assuming House Republicans vote in a unified bloc, Democrats could afford to lose no more than 43 members to sustain an Obama veto.

But corralling 145 lawmakers to back the president on Iran won’t be easy, given the likelihood of divisive vote that many lawmakers say will be among the most consequential of their careers.

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.”

Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ...”

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” That statement tells us much about the president’s mindset.

The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president’s comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.

In addition, there is the phrase “on all these issues,” implying more is at stake than just missile defense.”

Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn’t be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/
__________________________________________

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

“This is like an Iraq war moment,” said Nick Berning, communications director at MoveOn.

“That’s a vote that our members still haven’t forgotten.”

The first vote to attack Iraq was made when Clinton was President. Does anyone remember that? Secondly, we can argue until the cows come home whether it was a good idea to attack Iraq. I think it was, but its debatable. With that said, there can be absolutely no debate about whether it was a bad idea to pull out of Iraq as soon as we did. That was a huge historic mistake.

The ‘war’ and the ‘pull-out’ get conflated into the same thing nowadays, but as time passes historians will not go easy on Obama. What if Truman pulled out of Germany in 1946? Would we all be sitting around blaming Roosevelt? No!!!

The real problem for the Democrats is Obama completely surrendered to Iran on all fronts. He didn’t just surrender the dignity of his office. He surrendered the dignity of the United States as well as its reputation.

There’s a big picture at stake that most everyone overlooks.

Historically, the US is protector of human rights and freedom and when we can, we try to promote it (somehow the Dems conflate promoting human rights with beinh war mongers). Whatever Iran is in terms of religion (and I defend all religions that are peaceful), it goes without saying the Iranian government represents the opposite of Human Rights. To concede not only equal footing to the 6th century Iranian government, but to also completely capitulate on our principles simply in order to avoid a difficult confrontation (I did not say war...I said confrontation), is mind boggling. Is there an America any more?

The truth is...the Democratss have been handed a ‘turd-ball’ sandwich from Barrack Obama and they know it. If they support Obama, they will have to take total responsibility when religious minorities, gay folks, women, political opponents, and human rights supporters get wiped out by an Iran bent on regional domination. If they don’t support Obama, they will pay a heavy political price here at home (Qucik note-Obama uses the Government to go after those who don’t back him. Enjoy the Sandwich Democrats. You earned it).

One last thing. While the GOP has failed in their leadership role on this Iran issue. They have actually played this Iran deal intelligently from a political standpoint. Yes. I just said that. Please read before you throw up.

First the leadership failure: This is clearly a Treaty...a huge treaty in fact. By not calling for 2/3 majority vote in the Senate as is required for Treaty ratification (where it would surely not pass), the GOP has failed in their leadership duties to protect the country from entering into a bad deal. But here’s the rub: The GOP surely knew when they successfully blocked the Iran treaty in the Senate Obama would immediately hit the airways accusing them of promoting war on the eve of ‘Universal Peace in our Time.’ Obama is extremely effective, he would have a field day slicing away at the GOP all the way to next election. Obama is so twisted, he would probably purposely get us into a war with Iran just to prove his point. The GOP correctly predicted this sh-t storm and wanted no part of it.

So, by giving the Iran deal a straight up or down vote in both Houses of Congress, the GOP can vote against the deal without having to take the heat no matter how the vote turns out. In other words, they’ve now given complete responsibility for this deal to the Dems. If the Dems want the deal, they can create a veto proof caucus. If they don’t want the deal, they can see that the veto is overridden in both houses. Bottom line: The Dems will be responsible for this deal passing or not congress .

If it doesn’t pass Congress, Obama won’t be able to blame the GOP. If it does pass Congress, the GOP can use the Dems vote against them in the next election cycle. Again...Good politics by the GOP. Trust me. The Dems in Congress are lying awake in their beds at night counting the days until Obama leaves office almost as much as we are. I’m really curious to see if the Dems have the nerve to sign up with the Mullahs in Iran. We shall see....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.